User interface style guide compliance reporting

ABSTRACT

This disclosure provides various embodiments for generating reports relating to UI models&#39; compliance with a set of UI style guide rules. A digital UI model is parsed to determine whether a user interface, in a plurality of user interfaces within a software environment, satisfies at least one UI style guide rule in a plurality of UI style guide rules associated with the software environment. The digital UI model defines a plurality of attributes of the user interface. At least one statistical measure is calculated relating to compliance with UI style guide rules. The calculation of the statistical measure is based at least in part on the determination of whether the user interface satisfies the at least one UI style guide rule. A report is then generated identifying the at least one statistical measure, the report configured for presentation on a user interface of a computing device.

TECHNICAL FIELD

This present disclosure relates to software application user interfaces, and more particularly to handling violations of user-interface-related consistency rules.

BACKGROUND

Modern software applications, adapted for use with human users, typically employ at least one user interface to display data, controls, media, and other information to the user. Software application user interfaces (or “user interfaces,” or “UIs”) can also be interactive, allowing a user to interact with elements, controls, and data displayed on a graphical user interface device via a keyboard, mouse, touchscreen, and other devices. In some modern software applications and services, a single program or application can include several different user interfaces that can be displayed to and interacted with by the user. Further, in some enterprise software solutions offering or serving dozens of different software programs and services to end users, hundreds, and even thousands of related user interfaces can be provided and maintained within the software environment.

As computing and software markets mature, the development of user interfaces for software solutions and systems has grown more sophisticated. For instance, user experience design principles have been integrated into the design of modern software products. User experience design is user-centered, focusing on designing products, in this case software, with a primary focus on the user's experience and interaction with the product. User experience (or “UX”) design principles aim to make users' interactions as simple, efficient, and enjoyable as possible. Considerations of user experience design can include various dimensions including the look, feel, access to tools and services, and communication and co-operation support provided through the user interface. Indeed, international standard (e.g., ISO 9241) have established describing interface design requirements for usability.

Some products have been developed to assist product designers in realizing user-centered design, such as user interface prototyping and simulation tools. In some cases, software user interface design solutions can be proposed and promoted through a user interface style guide defining rules, conventions, preferences, and guidelines for user interfaces within a system. In some cases, user interface style guide can also focus on maintaining user interface consistency across a software product, for example, to promote a consistent particular product appearance, familiar user controls, or maintain a product trade dress.

SUMMARY

This disclosure provides various embodiments for generating reports relating to UI models' compliance with a set of UI style guide rules. A digital UI model can be parsed to determine whether a user interface, in a plurality of user interfaces within a software environment, satisfies at least one UI style guide rule in a plurality of UI style guide rules associated with the software environment. The digital UI model can define a plurality of attributes of the user interface. At least one statistical measure can be calculated relating to compliance with UI style guide rules. The calculation of the statistical measure can be based at least in part on the determination of whether the user interface satisfies the at least one UI style guide rule. A report can then be generated identifying the at least one statistical measure, the report configured for presentation on a user interface of a computing device.

While generally described as computer implemented software that processes and transforms the respective data, some or all of the aspects may be computer implemented methods or further included in respective systems or other devices for performing this described functionality. The details of these and other aspects and embodiments of the present disclosure are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other features, objects, and advantages of the disclosure will be apparent from the description and drawings, and from the claims.

DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 illustrates an example system including a UI rules engine.

FIG. 2 is a schematic representation of an example UI rules engine.

FIG. 3A is a representation of an example use of a digital UI model to generate a runtime UI.

FIG. 3B is a representation of a snippet of an example parsable UI model data file.

FIG. 3C is a representation of a snippet of an example UI style guide rule check script.

FIG. 4 is a representation of an example use of a UI rule check script to parse a batch of digital UI models to generate UI consistency check data.

FIG. 5A is a flowchart of an example technique for checking attributes of a UI for compliance with one or more UI style guide rules.

FIG. 5B is a flowchart of an example technique for checking attributes of a UI for compliance with one or more UI style guide rules in connection with an example UI development tool.

FIG. 5C is a flowchart of an example technique for generating UI rule consistency statistics based on checks of UI models representing UIs in a software environment.

FIG. 5D is a flowchart of an example technique for forecasting effects of a change involving one or more UI style guide rules.

FIGS. 6A-6C illustrate example screenshots of UIs used in connection with an example UI rules engine.

Like reference symbols in the various drawings indicate like elements.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Developing user interfaces (UIs) for software applications can be an expensive and resource-intensive process. Further, developing UIs within an existing software application environment can be further complicated by efforts to maintain consistency across all user interfaces in an application or software environment. Software products are rarely static however, and designers can opt for modifications to existing or previous UIs. Propagating these changes across each and every UI within a multi-UI system can be challenging and, in some cases, require redevelopment of one or more user interfaces in the system. Indeed, in large software environments, such as distributed enterprise software systems employing thousands of UIs within the system, making changes to and discovering inconsistencies among the design of the multiple UI can be prohibitively burdensome.

In some instances, parsable, digital UI models can be used to model attributes of user interfaces within a software environment. For instance, the location, labeling, color, size, and formatting of various UI elements within a particular UI can be described and defined within the UI model. Similar UI models can be generated and maintained for each UI within a particular software environment. A common UI style guide can be employed for UIs within the environment, with a plurality of executable UI rule check scripts being maintained and made available to automatically check the UI models to determine whether particular UIs in the environment are in violation of one or more UI style guide rules. Such UI rule check scripts can be integrated within UI development tools to further give users immediate feedback regarding UI design choices and can further be the basis of UI development planning and consistency reporting within the context of a UI design time effort. UI rule check scripts can facilitate quick and system-wide UI style guide rule consistency checks and can facilitate mass modifications of UI models to correct violations of UI style guide rules.

Turning to the example implementation of FIG. 1, the illustrated software environment 100 includes, or is communicably coupled with, one or more clients 102, 104, one or more application servers (e.g., 106, 108), such as application servers within an enterprise software environment, and one or more data repositories (e.g., 112, 114, 116), using one or more networks 120. The environment 100 can further include a UI rule engine 110 adapted to manage and facilitate consistency checks on multiple UI models (e.g., 130, 132, 134) modeling UIs (e.g., 126, 128) within the software environment 100, as well as a UI development tool 118. Each of servers 106, 108, UI rule engine 110, and UI development tool 118 can comprise electronic computing devices operable to receive, transmit, process, store, or manage data and information associated with the software environment 100. As used in this document, the term “computer” is intended to encompass any suitable processing device. For example, the environment 100 may be implemented using computers other than servers, including a server pool. Further, any, all, or some of the servers 106, 108 may be adapted to execute any operating system, including Linux, UNIX, Windows Server, or any other suitable operating system.

UI rule engine 110 can access and, in some examples, modify one or more UI models (e.g., 130, 132, 134) and UI rule check scripts (e.g., 136, 138) stored in and/or served by one or more data repositories 112, 114, 116. For example, the UI rule engine can retrieve and execute one or more UI rule check scripts (e.g., 136, 138) to parse one or more UI models (e.g., 130, 132, 134) to determine whether UIs (e.g., 126, 128) modeled by the UI models (e.g., 130, 132, 134) satisfy UI rules, such as UI style guide rules, corresponding to the UI rule check scripts (e.g., 136, 138). UIs 126, 128 can be UIs of one or more applications and services (e.g., 120, 122) served by application servers 106, 108 to clients 102, 104. Result data (e.g., 139) can be generated based on the execution of the UI rule check scripts (e.g., 136, 138) and stored in data repositories (e.g., 114) for use, for example, by UI rule engine in performing reporting and further analysis of UI style guide compliance.

In some instances, UI rule engine 110 can operate in connection with a UI development framework 118. UI development framework can include software and systems adapted to develop and modify UIs, for example, in a graphical development environment. Design decisions implemented for a UI under development using the UI development framework can be analyzed using UI rule engine to provide feedback regarding the design decision's consistency with UI style guide rules. In some instances, UI rule engine can be integrated with UI development framework 118 and UI development framework 118 can access and modify UI models (e.g., 130, 132, 134) in connection with development of a UI corresponding to the UI model.

Application servers 106, 108 can each include one or more processors 140, 142, at least one interface 146, 148, and computer-readable memory 150, 152. Application servers can be configured to serve web services (e.g., 120, 122), such as SOA-based or enterprise web services, for example. In some instances, some combination of application servers 106, 108 can be hosted on a common computing system, server, or server pool, and share computing resources, including shared memory, processors, and interfaces, such as in an enterprise software system serving services to a plurality of distinct clients and customers. The interfaces 146, 148 can be used for communicating with other systems in a client-server or other distributed environment (including within environment 100) connected to the network 120, for example the one or more clients 102, 104, external data sources (e.g., 116), or any other computing device adapted to interface with the servers 106, 108, including devices not illustrated in FIG. 1. Generally, each interface 146, 148 comprises logic encoded in software and/or hardware in a suitable combination and operable to communicate with the network 120. More specifically, the interfaces 146, 148 may comprise software supporting one or more communication protocols associated with communications such that the network 120 or hardware is operable to communicate physical signals within and outside of the illustrated software environment 100.

Each processor 140, 142 can execute instructions and manipulate data to perform the operations of an associated server or system (e.g., 106, 108) and may comprise, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a blade, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), among other suitable options. Although each processor 140, 142 is illustrated as a single processor, multiple processors may be used according to the particular needs of the associated server. References to a single processor 140, 142 are meant to include multiple processors where applicable. The operations that each processor 140, 142 executes are determined by the purpose and operations of its associated server. Generally, the processor 140, 142 executes instructions and manipulates data to perform the operations of its respective server and, specifically, the software systems, services, and applications hosted by the servers 106, 108.

At a high level, each “server” (e.g., 106, 108) includes one or more electronic computing devices operable to receive, transmit, process, store, or manage data and information associated with the environment 100. Specifically, a server is responsible for receiving requests from one or more clients and sending the appropriate response to the requesting client. In addition to requests from external clients, requests may also be sent from internal users, external or third-party customers, other automated applications, as well as any other appropriate entities, individuals, systems, or computers. For example, although FIG. 1 illustrates each server as a single server, a server can be implemented using two or more servers, as well as computers other than servers, including a server pool. Indeed, a server may be any computer or processing device such as, for example, a blade server, general-purpose personal computer (PC), Macintosh, workstation, UNIX-based workstation, or any other suitable device. In other words, the present disclosure contemplates computers other than general purpose computers, as well as computers without conventional operating systems. Further, servers may be adapted to execute any operating system, including Linux, UNIX, Windows, Mac OS, or any other suitable operating system.

In the case of servers hosting, serving, or otherwise providing software services or products, a processor (e.g., 140, 142) can execute the functionality required to receive and respond to requests from clients, as well as client applications interfacing with the server's hosted application (e.g., 120, 122). It will be understood that the term “application server” (e.g., 106, 108) can include any suitable software component or module, or computing device(s) capable of hosting and/or serving a software application, including distributed, enterprise, or cloud-based software applications. Regardless of the particular implementation, “software” may include computer-readable instructions, firmware, wired or programmed hardware, or any combination thereof on a tangible medium operable when executed to perform at least the processes and operations described herein. Indeed, each software component may be fully or partially written or described in any appropriate computer language including C, C++, Java, Visual Basic, assembler, Perl, any suitable version of 4GL, as well as others. Applications can be implemented as individual modules that implement the various features and functionality through various objects, methods, or other processes, or may instead include a number of sub-modules, third party services, components, libraries, and such, as appropriate. Conversely, the features and functionality of various components can be combined into single components as appropriate.

At a high level, each of the one or more hosted applications and services (e.g., 120, 122) illustrated in the environment 100 can include any application, program, module, process, or other software that may execute, change, delete, generate, or otherwise manage information according to the present disclosure, particularly in response to and in connection with one or more requests received from the illustrated clients 102, 104, as well as other applications. In certain cases, only one hosted application may be located at a particular server. In others, a plurality of related and/or unrelated hosted applications may be stored at a single server, or located across a plurality of other servers, as well. In certain cases, environment 100 may implement a composite hosted application. For example, portions of the composite application may be implemented as Enterprise Java Beans (EJBs) or design-time components may have the ability to generate run-time implementations into different platforms, such as J2EE (Java 2 Platform, Enterprise Edition), ABAP (Advanced Business Application Programming) objects, or Microsoft's .NET, among others. Additionally, applications may represent web-based applications accessed and executed via the network 120 (e.g., through the Internet). Further, one or more processes associated with a particular hosted application or service may be stored, referenced, or executed remotely. For example, a portion of a particular hosted application or service may be a web service associated with the application that is remotely called, while another portion of the hosted application may be an interface object or agent bundled for processing at a remote client (e.g., 102, 104). Moreover, any or all of the hosted applications and software service may be a child or sub-module of another software module or enterprise application (not illustrated) without departing from the scope of this disclosure. Still further, portions of a hosted application can be executed by a user working directly at a server hosting the application, as well as remotely at a client.

Each of the example servers 106, 108 can also include a memory (150, 152 respectively). Further repositories 112, 114, 116 and client computing devices (e.g., 102, 104) can also each include at least one memory device. Each memory may include any memory or database module and may take the form of volatile or non-volatile memory including, without limitation, non-transitory memory elements, magnetic media, optical media, random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), removable media, or any other suitable local or remote memory component. Each memory may further store various objects or data, including classes, frameworks, applications, backup data, business objects, jobs, web pages, web page templates, database tables, content repositories storing business or other dynamic information, or other information including any parameters, variables, algorithms, instructions, rules, constraints, or references thereto relevant to the purposes of the particular server. Each memory may also include any other appropriate data, such as VPN applications, firmware logs and policies, firewall policies, a security or access log, print or other reporting files, as well as others. Again, the particular data and instructions stored in each memory (e.g., 112, 114, 116, 150, 152) will be described in detail below in connection with the illustrated implementations of the software environment 100 and components thereof.

Generally, the network 120 facilitates wireless or wireline communications between the components of the software environment 100 (e.g., between the UI rule engine 110, data repositories 112, 114, 116 and one or more clients (e.g., 102, 104) as well as between other components as appropriate), as well as with any other local or remote computer, such as those associated with one or more applications or external data sources. The network 120 can be implemented as one or more distinct networks. In any implementation, the network 120 may be a continuous or discontinuous network without departing from the scope of this disclosure, so long as at least a portion of the network 120 may facilitate communications between senders and recipients. The network 120 may be all or a portion of an enterprise or secured network. As an example, in FIG. 1 networks 120 may represent a portion of an enterprise network, or a connection to the Internet. In some instances, a portion of the network 120 may be a virtual private network (VPN). All or a portion of the network 120 can comprise either a wireline or wireless link. Example wireless links may include 802.11a/b/g/n, 802.20, WiMax, and/or any other appropriate wireless link. In other words, the network 120 encompasses any internal or external network, networks, sub-network, or combination thereof operable to facilitate communications between various computing components inside and outside the illustrated environment 100. The network 120 may communicate, for example, Internet Protocol (IP) packets, Frame Relay frames, Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) cells, voice, video, data, and other suitable information between network addresses. The network 120 may also include one or more local area networks (LANs), radio access networks (RANs), metropolitan area networks (MANs), wide area networks (WANs), all or a portion of the Internet, and/or any other communication system or systems at one or more locations.

The illustrated implementation of FIG. 1 includes one or more local and/or remote clients 102, 104. A client 102, 104 can be any computing device operable to connect or communicate at least with an application server 106, 108, and/or the network 120 using a wireline or wireless connection. Each client 102, 104 includes at least one GUI (e.g., 160, 162). In general, the client 102, 104 comprises an electronic computing device operable to receive, transmit, process, and store any appropriate data associated with the software environment of FIG. 1. It will be understood that there may be any number of clients 102, 104 associated with environment 100, as well as any number of clients 102, 104 external to environment 100. Further, the term “client” and “user” may be used interchangeably as appropriate without departing from the scope of this disclosure. Moreover, while each client 102, 104 is described in terms of being used by one user, this disclosure contemplates that many users may use one computer or that one user may use multiple computers. As used in this disclosure, the client 102, 104 is intended to encompass a personal computer, electronic notepad, touch screen terminal, workstation, network computer, kiosk, wireless data port, smart phone, personal data assistant (PDA), one or more processors within these or other devices, or any other suitable processing device. For example, the client 102, 104 may comprise a computer that includes an input device, such as a keypad, touch screen, mouse, or other device that can accept information, and an output device that conveys information associated with operations of one or more applications stored and/or executed on an application server (or other servers in environment 100) or on the client 102, 104 itself, including digital data, visual information, or GUI 160, 162. Both the input device and the output device may include fixed or removable storage media such as a magnetic computer disk, CD-ROM, or other suitable media to both receive input from and provide output to users of the clients 102, 104 through the display, namely the GUI 160, 162.

The GUI 160, 162 comprises a graphical user interface operable to allow the user to interface with at least a portion of environment 100 for any suitable purpose, including allowing a user to interact with one or more software applications and services (e.g., 120, 122). Generally, the GUI 160, 162 provides users with an efficient and user-friendly presentation of data provided by or communicated within the system, such as UI of the UI development framework 118 or an application managed using UI rule engine 110 or developed using UI development framework 118. The term “graphical user interface,” or GUI, may be used in the singular or in the plural to describe one or more graphical user interfaces and each of the displays of a particular graphical user interface. Therefore, the GUI 160, 162 can be any graphical user interface, such as a web browser, touch screen, or command line interface (CLI) that processes information in the environment 100 and efficiently presents the results to the user. In general, UIs displayed using the GUI 160, 162 may include a plurality of user interface (UI) elements such as interactive fields, pull-down lists, media players, tables, graphics, virtual machine interfaces, buttons, etc. operable by the user at the client. These UI elements may be related to the functions of one or more applications or services (e.g., 120, 122), including applications hosted locally at the client.

While FIG. 1 is described as containing or being associated with a plurality of elements, not all elements illustrated within environment 100 of FIG. 1 may be utilized in each alternative implementation of the present disclosure. Additionally, one or more of the elements described herein may be located external to environment 100, while in other instances, certain elements may be included within or as a portion of one or more of the other described elements, as well as other elements not described in the illustrated implementation. Further, certain elements illustrated in FIG. 1 may be combined with other components, as well as used for alternative or additional purposes in addition to those purposes described herein.

FIG. 2 is a schematic representation of an example UI rules engine 200. The UI rules engine 200 can access a plurality of UI models 205, UI rule check scripts 210, as well as check result data 215 to perform various operations relating to checking and maintaining UI style guide consistency across a plurality of software application UIs modeled by the UI models 205. A UI rule check can be performed, for example, by a rule check module 225. In this particular example, a rule check module 225 can identify and retrieve UI models pertaining to a particular rule check. For instance, rule check module 225 can identify that the rule check is to be performed on a particular application having a corresponding set of UIs. Accordingly, rule check module 225 can identify those UI models 205 corresponding to and modeling attributes of the particular application's UIs. The rule check module 225 can further identify those UI rule check scripts 210 needed to perform the check. Each UI rule check script 210 can correspond to a particular UI style guide rule. Accordingly, the rule check module 225 can identify those UI rule check scripts 210 corresponding to the set of UI style guide rules against which the relevant set of UIs is to be checked for compliance.

As shown in FIG. 3A, each UI rule check script 210 can be executed to parse each identified UI model (e.g., 205 a-d) to identify characteristics of each UIs' attributes and determine whether the UI's attributes satisfy the UI style guide rule represented by the UI rule check script 210. For instance, FIG. 3B illustrates a snippet 305 of an XML-based, parsable, digital UI model of a particular UI to be parsed by a UI rule check script 210, including the snippet 310 of an example UI rule check script shown in FIG. 3C. As shown in FIG. 3B, a highlighted portion 315 (highlighted for purposes of convenience in illustrating the present example and not necessarily as a feature in an actual UI model) relates to a text used in a title field of a particular UI element within a UI modeled by the UI model. In this example, the UI model specifies, among several other attributes, that a title field attribute of the UI is to include the words “Details: Line Items of (0),” where “(0)” designates a placeholder for additional text. Turning to FIG. 3C, the UI rule check script corresponding to at least one UI style guide rule relating to title fields of a UI, includes a check (shown in highlighted portion 320) corresponding to a UI style guide rule that such title fields begin with the words “Details:”. In this example, if the UI rule check script check (of 320) identifies that the title field does not begin with the word “Details:”, a message is returned indicating that the rule has been violated and that the violation has a “High” priority. Accordingly, in the example of the UI model at least partially illustrated in FIG. 3B, the highlighted title field attribute 315 in snippet 305 does begin with the word “Details:” and, as a result, when the portion 320 of the UI rule check script snippet 310 is executed to parse highlighted portion 315, the UI rule check script does not generate the message indicating that the highlighted title field attribute 315 violates the UI style guide rule requiring that the title field begin with “Details:”. In other examples, UI rule check scripts 210 can be configured to return check result data 215 positively identifying whether the UI, modeled by the UI model 205, satisfies or violates the underlying UI style guide rule. Check result data 215 can be stored to record historical compliance with UI style guide rules, as well as for use by UI rule engine 200, as will be explained in further detail below.

Returning to FIG. 2, a UI rule engine 200 can further be operable to generate reports, for example, using a reporting module 230, from check result data 215 generated from rules consistency checks performed by the rule check module 225. Reports can include statistical and quantitative measures of style guide rule compliance across a plurality of rules and UIs. For example, a user can request a report showing the number or percentage of style guide rules violated (or, alternatively, satisfied) by a particular UI or group of UIs. Through such a report, a user can identify which UIs or UIs groups that are most consistent with a set of UI style guide rules. Reports can also be generated on a rule-by-rule basis. For instance, a plurality of UIs within a software environment or application can be analyzed to see which UIs are in compliance with a single style guide rule. In some instances, a report can include style guide rule consistency measures on an application-by-application basis. For instance, a measure of the style guide consistency of a group of UIs associated with a particular application can be generated and compared against other applications' UI sets. In still other examples, reporting module 230 can calculate and generate reports ranking, filtering, or identifying particular UIs or UI rules based on style guide consistency checks. For instance, a listing of the most-violated UI rules can be generated or a listing of those UIs with the lowest or highest degree of style guide compliance, as examples.

Reporting module 230 can be used in connection with a certification process for applications developed for use within a particular software environment. For instance, a particular software environment can require that applications offered, sold, executed, or otherwise used in connection comply with a minimum standard of style guide consistency for UIs within the software environment in order to be certified for use in connection with the environment. For example, UIs within a particular software environment may be required to be in 80% compliance with style guide rules set forth in connection with the particular software environment, such as a modular, enterprise software system. Applications submitted, for example, by third-party vendors and developers, can be tested for compliance using the rule check module 225, the reporting module 230 determining, from the rule check module result data 215, the aggregate compliance of the submitted application's UIs with the software environment's UI style guide rules. In some examples, applications for use within the software environment can be offered for download, purchase, subscription, or use through an electronic storefront, or application store, affiliate with the software environment. Applications may be required to be certified prior to being offered for access through the storefront, a portion of the certification being tied to UI style guide compliance.

While reports can be generated from previously-collected result data 215, reports can also be based on a real time snapshot of UI compliance with one or more UI style guide rules by one or more UIs. This can be useful within dynamic software environments where UI attributes and style guide rules are frequently evolving, being modified and fine-tuned. Accordingly, to obtain the most accurate reporting data, a style guide check can be performed using rule check module 225, the results of the check being immediately passed to reporting module 230 for analysis and use in generating a report based on the check.

As noted above, in some instances, administrators or developers of UIs within a particular software system may desire to modify UI models 205 or UI rule check scripts 210 to reflect corresponding modifications to UIs and UI style guide rules respectively. A rule manager 240 can be adapted to perform modifications on UI rule check scripts 210, for instance, to reflect the addition of a new style guide rule or the modification or deletion of an existing style guide rule. Further, modifications can be made to UI models via a UI model manager 245, for example, to resolve UI style guide violations in the underlying UIs. In some cases, UI model manager 245 can modify UI models 205 as a batch, for example, to correct a particular style guide violation common to UIs within the batch. This can be particularly advantageous in systems where dozens to thousands of UIs exist that potentially require the same, consistent modification.

Mass changes of UIs (and their corresponding UI models) can be required, for example, by virtue of a change to the UI style guide and, accordingly, UI style guide scripts, given that many UIs within a system may have been developed prior to the introduction of the new or modified UI style guide rule. As a result, modifying a particular style guide rule or performing a mass (or batch) UI model modification can impose costs despite the cost savings realized by batch UI modifications. Consequently, it can be useful to survey a set of UIs, in advance of a rule change or batch modification to forecast the impact of a particular change. Accordingly, a planning module 235 can be included within a UI rule engine 200 to perform hypothetical reporting and forecasting of changes to UI style guide rules or UI models. For instance, a new style guide rule may be proposed for a software environment including a set of existing UIs. A temporary UI rule check script can be generated, corresponding to and modeling the new rule. The temporary UI rule check script can be “temporary” in the sense that the new rule modeled by the temporary UI rule is only a proposed, hypothetical rule. Accordingly, the temporary UI rule check script modeling the new UI style guide rule should not be added to the set of standard UI style guide check scripts 210 until the new rule is approved and implemented as one of the standard UI style guide rules. The temporary UI rule check script can, however, be used to parse the set of existing UI models 205 in a manner similar to other UI rule check scripts 210 to determine whether and which of the UI models would satisfy the new, proposed style guide rule. Through the generation and execution of a temporary UI rule check script, a developer can determine, in advance of a change to a style guide rule, how many UIs will be affected by the change.

In some implementations, UI rule engine can operate in connection with a UI development tool, such as UI development tool 118, shown in the example of FIG. 1. Indeed, in some examples, all or a portion of the functionality provided though UI rule engine 200 can be integrated into a UI development tool, for instance, using a UI developer interface 250. A UI developer interface 250 can coordinate communications and operations performed in connection with a UI development tool. A UI development tool (such as UI development tool 118) can be a software application adapted to build, develop, edit, and modify UIs for use with one or more software applications or environments. A UI development tool can be a design time tool offered, for example, in connection with an integrated development environment (IDE). Further, in some examples, UIs generated or operated upon using an example UI development tool can include corresponding UI models. Indeed, a UI development tool can generate parsable, design time UI models for use in generating the corresponding runtime UI.

In typical systems, UI development tools are not tied to UI style guide rules, and UI developers are left unassisted in maintaining an understanding of style guide requirements for a particular UI developed for a particular software system having its own unique style guide rules. Integrating or coupling a UI development tool with UI rule engine 200 can allow a UI developer to receive immediate feedback for design decision implemented or contemplated using a UI development tool. For instance, a UI developer may designate, using a UI development tool, that a text form field, button, or other control be positioned in a particular location of a UI developed using the UI development tool. The UI development tool may include a graphical representation of the UI being built. While the decision of the UI designer to place a particular UI control in a particular location within the UI may be appealing to the UI designer, the decision may violate a particular UI style guide rule. A user modification of a UI in development using a UI development tool can trigger a UI rule consistency check using, for example, rule check module 225 and one or more rule check scripts 210. For instance, as a user builds a UI using a UI development tool, a corresponding, parsable UI model can be developed. While the UI model may be incomplete, UI attributes that have been defined in the UI model can nonetheless be parsed, using one or more rule check scripts 210 to determine whether the defined attributes satisfy one or more UI style guide rules action. The results of the UI rules consistency check can then be presented to the user of the UI development tool, via UI developer interface 250, providing immediate feedback to the user regarding the style guide consistency of a UI design choice implemented using the UI development tool.

In some examples, the nature of the user's actions defining UI attributes using the UI development tool can be used to dynamically select UI rule check scripts 210 determined to be relevant to the user's action. For instance, in the example of a user defining the number of columns within a table in a UI developed using the UI development tool, the UI developer interface 250 can identify that the user action relates to table UI elements and dynamically select one or more UI rule check scripts 210 identified as pertaining to style guide rules defining guidelines for table UI elements. In this manner, the number of UI consistency checks can be focused to the relevant actions of the UI development tool user, thereby improving the performance and efficiency of the UI rule engine's interaction with and service of the UI development tool.

UI developer interface 250 can also be used to assist a UI developer in understanding UI style guide rules relating to a particular UI design project. For instance, a rule library 255 can be provided with descriptions detailing particular UI style guide rules. The rule library 255 can, in some examples, be a wiki-based guide outlining descriptions of and known solutions to violations of UI style guide rules, with one or more users of the UI rule engine 200 providing content to the rule library 255. A user can select a link, for example, to a particular UI style guide rule, and access a detailed explanation of the rule, to assist the user in avoiding UI style guide rule violations during development. In some examples, the identification of a UI style guide rule can be presented in connection with UI rule consistency check feedback provided through the UI developer interface 250 to the UI development tool, as explained above, for example in connection with a UI design choice implemented using the UI development tool. The feedback can include the identification of a UI style guide rule violation, identifying the violated rule. A user can select the identified rule to access the rule library 255 content explaining the identified style guide rule. In this manner, a user can be assisted in understanding style guide requirements, as well as understanding how style guide violations can be remedied (using the UI development tool) and avoided. Such knowledge base functionality can be particularly useful in connection with systems employing multiple UI designers, including third-party UI designers who may develop UIs according to multiple different style guides, improving style guide rule compliance through education of a particular UI style guide. Further, UI rule engine 200 can maintain UI rule check scripts 215 for multiple different style guides and perform UI style guide compliance checks, reporting, planning, and UI development integration for each of the multiple different style guides. Indeed, some UI rule check scripts 215 can be reused across multiple different style guides sharing one or more style guide rules. Further, a UI developer interface 250 can identify the relevant style guide applying to a particular UI development project, and dynamically select those UI rule check scripts 215 pertaining to the identified UI style guide.

Turning to FIG. 4, a design-time UI model 205, generated, for example, using a UI development tool, can define attributes of a UI 415 of a particular software application 410. The UI model 205 can be an XML file, or some other parsable file, that can define and identify, to a UI generation engine 405, the attributes to be included in a particular UI. The UI model snippet 305 of FIG. 3B is but one example of a parsable UI model file. A UI generation engine 405 can build the UI 415 corresponding to and defined by the UI model 205 by parsing the UI model to identify the set of attributes defined for the UI and build the UI by constructing the UI from UI elements and definitions specified in the attributes defined in the UI model. In such examples, modifications made to the UI model 205 can propagate to the runtime instances of the corresponding UI 415, further illustrating the advantage to using UI models to implement batch modifications, or edits, based, for example, on remedying UI style guide rule violations.

Turning now to FIG. 5A, a flowchart 500 a is shown of an example technique for checking attributes of a UI for compliance with one or more UI style guide rules. At least one particular digital UI model in a plurality of digital UI models can be identified 502, each of the UI models defining attributes of at least one UI in a plurality of UIs. The particular digital UI model can correspond to and represent attributes of a particular UI in the plurality of UIs. The particular UI model can be parsed 504 to identify the attributes of the particular UI to determine 506 whether the attributes of the particular UI satisfy a particular UI style guide rule in a plurality of UI style guide rules. In some instances, a particular UI check script, modeling the particular UI style guide rule, can be used to parse 504 the UI model and determine 506 whether the attributes of the particular UI satisfy the particular UI style guide rule. Style guide check result data can be generated 508 identifying whether the at least one particular UI model satisfies the particular UI style guide rule.

A UI style guide consistency check can check one or more UI models against one or more UI style guide rules (using one or more corresponding UI rule check scripts). For example, defined sets of UIs can be checked as a group, such as a set of UIs of a particular type, UI developed by a particular developer, or UIs of a particular application, among other examples. In some instances, a plurality of UIs can be checked against one or more UI style guide rules. Further, a single system can include thousands of UIs. In typical UI development, hundreds of man hours can be spent manually checking UIs for compliance with style guide requirements. In some instances, given the cost of checking each UI for style guide compliance, a UI administrator may only be able to spot check UIs, leaving the possibility that several style guide violations may not be identified and remedied prior to the UIs being released for commercial runtime consumption. Using the concepts described above, large batches of parsable UI models can be parsed, identifying attributes of the represented UI. The attributes can then be examined to determine which attributes of which UIs in the batch comply or do not comply with which UI style guide rules. Indeed, an entire set of UIs can be checked for compliance with UI style guide rules in a single batch check, reducing the time necessary to ensure UI style guide compliance to a fraction of the time typically spent manually checking during typical UI development efforts.

One or more UIs, or a batch of UIs, can be checked against one or more UI style guide rules during a single style guide compliance check. A set of UI style guide rules can be identified to serve as the basis of a UI style guide consistency check. For instance, a particular category of style guide rules, or set of style guide rules associated with a particular developer or company can be bundled together with corresponding UI rule check scripts for use in a particular style guide compliance check. Indeed, one or more UIs can be checked against an entire set of UI style guide rules. Each corresponding UI model can be parsed by a corresponding UI rule check script corresponding to the set of UI style guide rules. Indeed, in some examples, parsing of multiple UI models by multiple UI rule check scripts can be performed in parallel to expedite performance of the entire consistency check. For example, checking can begin with a first UI rule check script parsing a first UI model in parallel with a second UI rule check script parsing a second UI model. Later, the first UI rule check script can parse the second UI model in parallel with the second UI rule check script parsing the first UI model, and so on. In some implementations, style guide consistency checks can be further expedited by first matching UI style guide rules with UIs to which the UI style guide rules are relevant, prior to executing the UI rule check scripts to parse the corresponding UI models. For instance, a first UI may include a table UI component, while a second UI may not. Accordingly, in the set of UI style guide rules against which the consistency check is to be performed, one or more UI style guide rules may apply to table UI components. By first identifying that the second UI does not include a table UI component, parsing of the UI model corresponding to the second UI by the table-related UI rule check scripts can be avoided, with the table-related UI rule check scripts only parsing those UI models that include table UI components. Indeed, in any UI rule consistency check, parsing of UI models can be preceded by filtering the set of UI models for attributes related to the UI style guide rule to be checked.

In response to receiving data identifying results of a particular style guide consistency check, one or more UI attributes can be identified that violate one or more of the checked UI style guide rules. In some instances, the perceived seriousness of a particular style guide violation can also be identified and presented to the user to assist the user in assessing how to address the violation. Indeed, a user can trigger resolution of the one or more style guide violations in response to being notified of the violations. A resolution can be as simple as, for example, receiving a user request to ignore an identified style guide violation. Allowing a user to ignore a style guide violation provides for the sometimes needed flexibility for a particular UI to be developed with attributes that are an exception to a particular one-size-fits-all style guide rule, for example. A user, upon reviewing a particular style guide violation can, for instance, determine that the violation is not serious, accurate, or appropriate for a particular UI. Receiving a user request to ignore a particular style guide violation can cause future checks to ignore the violation as well.

In other instances, identification of a UI style guide rule violation can motivate the user to access the offending UI model and edit the UI model to redefine the offending UI attribute to bring the corresponding UI in compliance with the violated style guide rule. Redefining of the UI model to bring the UI model in compliance with a particular UI style guide rule can also be automated and performed by instructions executed by one or more computing devices. Further, where multiple UI models have been identified as violating UI style guide rules, one or more known solutions to the violation can be identified and performed on each of the offending UI models as a batch to consistently remedy the one or more violations across the batch of UIs. A solution can be identified or generated, dynamically, by one or more computing devices, or, alternatively, by the user, specifying how the offending UI models should be modified in response to the detect UI style guide violations. In one example, a common style guide error relating to the naming convention of certain button UI control elements can be identified in several UIs. For instance, a particular style guide rule can specify that button UI controls used to start a process be labeled “Start.” Through a UI style guide consistency check of the particular style guide rule, it can be identified that several UIs labeled the button UI control “Go,” rather than “Start,” in violation of the style guide rule. Amending the definition of the button's labeling can be accomplished by identifying and amending a line of code with each offending UI's respective UI model. Accordingly, an instruction can be executed to automatically identify each of the UI models of the offending UIs, identify the offending attribute in each UI model, and amend the offending attribute in each UI model to re-label each button “Start,” rather than “Go.” By so doing, common UI style guide violations can be both detected and remedied by performing batch check and modification operations on, sometimes, large sets of UIs via parsable UI models of the UIs.

Turning to FIG. 5B, a flowchart 500 b shows an example technique for checking attributes of a UI for compliance with one or more UI style guide rules in connection with an example UI development tool. At least one particular digital UI model in a plurality of digital UI models can be identified 510, the particular UI model currently accessed by an UI development tool, such as a UI development tool integrated with a UI rule engine (such as described above) or one or more UI rule check scripts. In some instances, the particular UI model before the UI development tool can be modified 512 using the UI development tool. The modification to the particular UI model can correspond to a desired modification of a particular UI modeled by the particular UI model. A modified version of the particular UI can be parsed 514 to determine whether the modified particular UI violates at least one particular user interface style guide rule in a plurality of user interface style guide rules. The results of the parsing (i.e., the UI style guide rule consistency check) can then be presented 516 in a user interface of the UI development tool as feedback to the UI development tool user regarding the modification to the particular UI model.

The UI development tool can be directly integrated with the functionality of software implementing UI style guide consistency checks. For instance, UI rule check scripts can be integrated into the UI development tool, allowing the UI development tool to trigger execution of one or more UI rule check scripts to parse the UI model of a UI currently edited or under development using a UI development tool. Execution of one or more UI rule check scripts through a UI development tool can be triggered, for example, in response to a user request to perform a style guide consistency check or automatically, in response to a UI development tool event. For instance, user can perform operations using the UI development tool to modify and define attributes of a UI. Such operations can trigger style guide consistency checks to check the modified UI against the style guide rule. Further, detected style guide violations can be conveniently resolved using the UI development tool, where the user can directly redefine aspects of the UIs underlying UI model. In some instance, UI development tools can highlight or provide direction to the user to implement a resolution to a detected UI style guide rule violation. For instance, the UI development tool can highlight a UI component relating to an offending UI attribute or launch a help tool to suggest known remedies for the particular style guide violation.

FIG. 5C illustrates a flowchart 500 c of an example technique for generating UI rule consistency statistics based on checks of UI models representing UIs in a software environment. Generating rule consistency statistics can be performed, for example, using a reporting module of an example UI rule engine. At least one UI model can be parsed 522 to determine whether a corresponding user interface, in a plurality of user interfaces within a software environment, satisfies at least a first UI style guide rule in a plurality of UI style guide rules associated with the software environment, the particular digital UI model defining a plurality of attributes of the particular user interface. At least one statistical measure can be calculated 522 relating to particular UI's compliance with UI style guide rules. The statistical measure can be calculated 522 based at least in part on the determination 520 of whether the particular UI satisfies the first UI style guide rule. A report can be generated 524 including the calculated statistical measure. The generated report can be adapted for presentation to a user, for instance, using a GUI.

Reports can be generated that include a wide variety of statistical measures based on the results of one or more style guide consistency checks, including consistency checks launched in connection with a reporting request. Reports can provide style guide violation statistics at the UI level, identifying style guide violations or style guide rule compliance rates for each UI, UI type, UI grouping, or UI component checked for style guide compliance. For instance, an aggregate compliance rate can be calculated for a particular UI based on the UI's compliance with a set of UI style guide rules. Style guide compliance trends can also be calculated and reported. For instance, common style guide violations can be identified for logical groupings of UI. For instance, a set of UIs developed by a particular vendor or associated with a particular software application can be analyzed to see if recurring violations of one or more style guide rules exist across the set of UIs. Further, rule-based statistics can be calculated, for instance, to identify the rate of compliance with each UI style guide rule in a set of UI style guide rules. UI style guide rules and UIs can be ranked or graded based on compliance statistics. For instance, a most-violated set of UI rules can be identified. This can be useful, for instance, in identifying style guide rules that are poorly defined, impractical, or outdated. Alternatively, reports showing style guide rules with poor compliance can serve as the basis of training initiatives designed to better educate participating UI designers with regard to the oft-violated rule. Further, a low compliance rate can also suggest potential errors in UI rule check scripts used to detect violations of the underlying UI style guide rule.

UI models and UI rule check scripts can be also used to produce data for reports not directly related to style guide rule violations. For instance, parsing of a UI model by a UI rule check script can result in the detection of the presence (or absence) of particular UI attribute generally with the UI model. Accordingly, reports can be generated, based on these findings, that compile statistics regarding the general frequency of a UI attribute or UI component's inclusion in UIs within a software environment. For instance, a UI rule check script relating to drop-down UI menus can identify those UI models including such elements. As a result, the number or percentage of UIs in the system that include drop-down menus can be quickly discovered for potentially large sets of UIs within a system.

FIG. 5D illustrates a flowchart 500 d of an example technique for forecasting effects of a change involving one or more UI style guide rules. At least one proposed user interface style guide rule can be identified 530, for example in a request to forecast the effect of implementing the proposed user interface style guide rule. The proposed user interface style guide rule can apply to at least one user interface in a plurality of user interfaces for use in connection with at least one software application. Each user interface in the plurality of user interfaces can have an associated digital UI model representing attributes of the respective user interface. At least one of these UI models can be parsed 532, for example by a UI rule check script generated for the proposed user interface style guide rule, to determine whether attributes of the particular user interface would violate the proposed user interface style guide rule. Data identifying the results of the consistency check can be sent 534 identifying whether the at least one particular user interface in the plurality of user interfaces would violate the at least one proposed user interface style guide rule.

As in other examples, hypothetical style guide rule consistency checks can be carried out on a batch-basis across multiple UI models. Further, consistency checks can be limited, as in other examples, to UI models dynamically identified as potentially affected by the proposed UI style guide rule. Proposed UI style guide rules can represent potential new style guide rules, or potential modifications or deletions of existing style guide rules. A hypothetical style guide rule consistency check based on one or more proposed UI style guide rules can be used in a planning phase, prior to the formal adoption of the proposed rules. Accordingly, in addition to identifying the potential effect the adoption of a particular proposed UI style guide rule would have on a set of UIs, a cost of implementing the proposed UI style guide rule can also be calculated. For instance, potential violations of the proposed UI style guide rule can be detected through a hypothetical style guide rule consistency check. The severity of the violation can also be identified. A cost, or grade, assigning a quantitative measure to the potential effect of adopting a proposed UI style guide rule, can be calculated based both on the number and the severity of the detected, potential violations of the rule detected during the check. Such quantitative measures can be used by administrators in their decision to adopt and deploy a particular proposed UI style guide rule.

Adoption of a proposed UI style guide rule can result in the addition of a corresponding rule check script to a plurality of UI rule check scripts. Further, subsequent UI style guide consistency checks can check UIs' continued compliance with the newly-adopted UI style guide rule following adoption of the rule. Indeed, modification operations can be performed across one or more UI models found to violate a newly-adopted UI style guide rule in order to bring offending UIs in compliance with the new rule.

FIGS. 6A-6C illustrate example screenshots of UIs used in connection with an example UI rules engine. FIG. 6A, for example, illustrates a presentation of UI style guide consistency check results. Varying levels of detail can be presented for results of a style guide consistency check. In the example of FIG. 6A, at least a portion of a listing of style guide consistency check results is presented to a user. The listing, in this particular example, includes an identification of the offending UI attribute 602 as well as an identification 604 of the detected inconsistencies with the style guide rules. In this example, both style guide “violations” and “warnings” have been detected. A “violation” can indicate that a violation of a style guide rule has been detected for the corresponding UI attribute. A “warning,” can, for instance, instead indicate that UIs in a set of UIs attempt to comply with a particular style guide rule in an inconsistent manner, or in a manner technically in keeping with the style guide rule but otherwise bordering on a violation of the rule. Additionally, the listing can include identifications 606 of a calculated or assigned priority level determined for the detected inconsistency or violation, as well as a message 608 describing the nature of the violation and/or violated UI style guide rule. The priority level 606 can be pre-assigned to violations of a particular type or dynamically determined based on factors including how the offending UI attribute violated the corresponding UI style guide rule, how many times the rule was violated, a deployment schedule for the corresponding UI, or how many other violations were detected for a particular UI or UI attribute, among other examples.

As shown in the screenshot 600 a of FIG. 6A, data can be maintained relating to the nature and characteristics of a particular UI attribute 602. For instance, the type of UI 610 to which the UI attribute applies can be maintained, as well as presented in a listing of style guide consistency check results to assist the user in detecting style guide consistency trends across the set of results. Similarly, a software application using the offending UI can also be identified 612. In other examples, style guide consistency check results can further include other columns, fields, and information not shown in the example of FIG. 6A, including an identification of the UI model, an identification of the particular violated UI style guide rule, a directory address of the offending UI or UI attribute, tools for launching remedies for the detected style guide rule violations, identification of developers responsible for developing or last-modifying the particular UI attribute, the date of the UI's last modification, among other features. Still other examples can provide less-detailed representations of results of style guide consistency checks, such as the links to an offending UI model, links to descriptions of individual style guide violations, or by graphically highlighting offending UI elements or lines of code in UI models representing an offending UI attribute, as but some examples.

Turning to FIG. 6B, a screenshot 600 b is shown of an example interface of a UI development tool integrated with style guide rule checking functionality. One or more windows 620, 622 can be provided for use in modifying attributes of a UI using the UI development tool. For instance, a window 620 can be provided presenting a representation of the UI under development using the UI development tool. The window 620 can present a representation of the UI as it would be presented to a user. A user-developer can specify attributes of the UI by adjusting UI elements within the representation presented in window 620. Alternatively, a user can also specify UI attribute values in window 622. Modifications to the UI made in either window 620 or 622 can be reflected in the other window. For instance, a modification made to the UI representation in window 620 can change a corresponding attribute of the UI, the change being reflected automatically in window 622. Additionally, changes made to attributes of a particular UI using UI development tool windows 620 or 622 can result in a corresponding modifications being made to at least one particular UI model corresponding to the particular UI. The UI model can be parsed to check the modified UI for compliance with one or more UI style guide rules.

As shown in FIG. 6B, an additional window 624 can be presented to a user in connection with a UI development tool interface, the window 624 presenting results of at least one style guide consistency check on the UI developed using the UI development tool. A user can filter results of the style guide consistency analysis using controls 625, for example, to filter results by violation, warning, among other examples. The results listing presented in window 624 can include an indication of whether a style guide consistency warning (e.g., 626 a) or violation (e.g., 626 b) was detected, together with an identification 628 of the detected style guide inconsistency and description 630 or other message relating to the detected inconsistency. An identification of the offending UI attribute as well as the path 632 to the attribute in the corresponding UI model can be presented in the window 624. Additionally, controls 634 can be provided allowing users to designate that a detected violation in the listing should either be ignored or confirmed as an incident for later resolution. Indeed, in some examples, a user can immediately remedy an identified style guide inconsistency using the UI development tool by modifying the offending UI attributes to bring them in compliance with the violated UI style guide rule.

FIG. 6C illustrates a screenshot 600 c of a presentation of detected hypothetical UI style guide violations of a set of proposed UI style guide rules (detected, for example, using corresponding UI style guide rule check scripts). A listing 640 is shown, generated in response to one or more user requests to forecast the effects of adopting a plurality of proposed UI style guide rules, including new and modified style guide rules. Each row (e.g., 648, 652) in the listing 640 can correspond to a distinct proposed UI style guide rule. Information can be presented, relating to each proposed UI style guide rule, such as a message 642 identifying or describing the proposed UI style guide rule, an application, category, or “area” 644 of the UIs found that would violate the proposed rule, and a count 646 of the number of potential violations detected by checking the UI models for violations of the proposed style guide rules. For instance, a row 648 in listing 640 can relate to a UI style guide rule specifying the correct placement of a “Send” button within a UI for which ten potential violations were identified (i.e. in column 646) within a set of UIs.

Additional details can also be made available to users surveying the results of the forecasted effect of adopting proposed UI style guide rules. For instance, an expansion control (e.g., 650) can be used to expand a row and display additional information relating to a particular analysis of a proposed UI style guide rule. For instance, the expansion control 650 of row 652 has been selected in the screenshot 600 c displaying additional details to a user relating to the proposed rule of row 652. For instance, a listing of a plurality of UI categories (e.g., 654) can be presented that would be affected by a proposed UI style guide rule relating to making inclusion of a “Save/Close” button mandatory. The expanded details can further include presentation of the number of potential violations detected in each UI category. For example, a sub-row 654 corresponding to a “FIN” UI category can indicate that eighteen separate violations of the “Save/Close” button rule were identified in UIs of category “FIN.” A UI category can, in some instances, correspond to a particular software application. Depending on the needs of the user, a user can further expand the presentation of forecast information by selecting expansion control 656, for instance, to expand forecast statistics relating to a UI category, such as to display identifications of individual UIs or UI attributes that would violate the proposed UI style guide rule of row 652 within category “FIN.” Similar details can be identified for each of the UI style guide rows and UI categories. The screenshot 600 c of FIG. 6C, as well as the screenshots 600 a, 600 b of FIGS. 6A-6B, are presented as illustrative examples only, and numerous additional and alternative interface configurations and functionality can be implemented to assist users in realizing the features described above.

Although this disclosure has been described in terms of certain implementations and generally associated methods, alterations and permutations of these implementations and methods will be apparent to those skilled in the art. For example, the actions described herein can be performed in a different order than as described and still achieve the desirable results. As one example, the processes depicted in the accompanying figures do not necessarily require the particular order shown, or sequential order, to achieve the desired results. In certain implementations, multitasking and parallel processing may be advantageous. Additionally, other user interface layouts and functionality can be supported. Other variations are within the scope of the following claims. 

What is claimed is:
 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: parsing a first digital user interface (UI) model in a plurality of digital UI models to determine whether a first user interface, in a plurality of user interfaces within a software environment, satisfies at least a first UI style guide rule in a plurality of UI style guide rules associated with the software environment, the first digital UI model defining a plurality of attributes of the first user interface, and actions defining UI attributes associated with the first user interface used to dynamically select a UI rule check script determined to be relevant to the actions and modeling at least the first UI style guide rule; ranking the first user interface among the plurality of user interfaces and the first UI style guide rule among the plurality of UI style guide rules based on a calculation of at least one statistical measure relating to a rate of compliance with UI style guide rules based at least in part on the determination of whether the first user interface satisfies the first UI style guide rule; and generating reporting data identifying the at least one statistical measure, the reporting data configured for presentation on a user interface of a computing device.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first digital UI model is parsed by executing a first UI rule check script, in a plurality of UI rule check scripts, corresponding to the first UI style guide rule, wherein each UI rule check script in the plurality of UI rule check scripts corresponds to at least one UI style guide rule in the plurality of user interface style guide rules and is adapted, when executed by at least one processor device, to parse UI models to determine whether user interface attributes modeled by the UI models violate the UI style guide rule corresponding to the UI rule check script.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the statistical measure relates to compliance of a first set of user interfaces in the plurality of user interfaces with a set of UI style guide rules included in the plurality of UI style guide rules, wherein the first set of user interfaces includes the first user interface and at least one other second user interface and the set of UI style guide rules at least include the first UI style guide rule.
 4. The method of claim 3, wherein digital UI models corresponding to each user interface in the first set of user interfaces is parsed to determine whether attributes of the corresponding user interface defined by the UI model satisfy at least the first UI style guide rule.
 5. The method of claim 3, wherein the statistical measure includes an aggregate degree of compliance with the set of UI style guide rules by user interfaces in the first set of user interfaces.
 6. The method of claim 3, wherein the first set of user interfaces corresponds to user interfaces of a first software application.
 7. The method of claim 6, wherein the statistical measure includes an aggregate degree of compliance with the set of UI style guide rules by user interfaces in the first set of user interfaces, the method further comprising: determining that the calculated aggregate degree of compliance by the first set of user interfaces exceeds a threshold value; and sending data approving runtime use of the first software application based, at least in part, on the determination that the calculated aggregate degree of compliance by the first set of user interfaces exceeds a threshold value.
 8. The method of claim 7, further comprising: authorizing marketing of the first software application in an electronic storefront based, at least in part, on the determination that the calculated aggregate degree of compliance by the first set of user interfaces exceeds a threshold value.
 9. The method of claim 3, wherein the statistical measure further relates to compliance of a second set of user interfaces in the plurality of user interfaces with the set of UI style guide rules, the second set of user interfaces corresponding to user interfaces of a second software application, the reporting data identifying overall compliance with the set of UI style guide rules by user interfaces of each of the first and second software applications.
 10. The method of claim 1, wherein each UI style guide rule relates to user experience design guidelines for user interfaces in the software environment.
 11. An article comprising a non-transitory, machine-readable storage device storing instructions operable to cause at least one processor to perform operations comprising: parsing a first digital user interface (UI) model in a plurality of digital UI models to determine whether a first user interface, in a plurality of user interfaces within a software environment, satisfies at least a first UI style guide rule in a plurality of UI style guide rules associated with the software environment, the first digital UI model defining a plurality of attributes of the first user interface, and actions defining UI attributes associated with the first user interface used to dynamically select a UI rule check script determined to be relevant to the actions and modeling at least the first UI style guide rule; ranking the first user interface among the plurality of user interfaces and the first UI style guide rule among the plurality of UI style guide rules based on a calculation of at least one statistical measure relating to a rate of compliance with UI style guide rules based at least in part on the determination of whether the first user interface satisfies the first UI style guide rule; and generating reporting data identifying the at least one statistical measure, the reporting data configured for presentation on a user interface of a computing device.
 12. A system comprising: memory configured as at least one data repository and including: a plurality of digital user interface (UI) models, each UI model identifying attributes of at least one user interface in a plurality of user interfaces; and a plurality of plurality of UI rule check scripts, each UI rule check script in the plurality of UI rule check scripts modeling at least one UI style guide rule in a plurality of UI style guide rules and dynamically selected as relevant to actions that define UI attributes associated with the at least one user interface, each UI rule check script configured, when executed by at least one processing device, to parse digital UI models and determine whether user interface attributes modeled by corresponding UI models satisfy the UI style guide rule corresponding to the executed UI rule check script; and a UI style guide reporting engine interoperably coupled with the memory and containing a hardware processor, the UI style guide reporting engine configured to: perform a UI style guide compliance analysis by executing at least one particular UI rule check script, in the plurality of UI rule check scripts, corresponding to at least one particular UI style guide rule to parse at least one particular digital UI model in the plurality of digital UI models, to determine whether the at least one particular user interface, modeled by the at least one particular digital UI model, satisfies the at least one particular UI style guide rule; rank the at least one particular user interface among the plurality of user interfaces and the at least one particular UI style guide rule among the plurality of UI style guide rules based on a calculation of at least one statistical measure based at least in part on the performed UI style guide compliance analysis, the statistical measure relating to a rate of compliance with the at least one particular style guide rule; and generate reporting data identifying the at least one statistical measure, the reporting data configured for presentation on a user interface of a computing device.
 13. The method of claim 9, wherein the set of UI style guide rules includes the plurality of UI style guide rules and the first set of user interfaces includes the plurality of user interfaces.
 14. The method of claim 9, wherein the statistical measure includes an identification, for each UI style guide rule in the set of UI style guide rules, of a degree of compliance with the respective UI style guide rule by user interfaces in the set of user interfaces.
 15. The method of claim 14, wherein the statistical measure includes an aggregate degree of compliance with the set of UI style guide rules by the first user interface.
 16. The method of claim 14, wherein the set of UI style guide rules is a first set of UI style guide rules corresponding to a first category of UI style guide rules, at least a second UI style guide rule is included in a second set of UI style guide rules corresponding to a second category of UI style guide rules, and the statistical measure includes an aggregate degree of compliance with the first category of UI style guide rules by at least the first user interface and an aggregate degree of compliance with the second category of UI style guide rules by at least the first user interface.
 17. The method of claim 3, wherein the set of UI style guide rules includes at least two UI style guide rules in the plurality of UI style guide rules.
 18. The method of claim 17, wherein the statistical measure includes an identification of a most-violated UI style guide rule in the plurality of UI style guide rules by user interfaces in the plurality of user interfaces.
 19. The method of claim 1, wherein the first UI style guide rule is included in a set of UI style guide rules including at least one other UI style guide rule from the plurality of UI style guide rules, the first digital UI model is parsed to determine whether the first user interface satisfies each UI style guide rule in the set of UI style guide rules, and calculating the at least one statistical measure is further based on the determination of whether the first user interface satisfies each UI style guide rule in the set of UI style guide rules.
 20. The method of claim 19, further comprising: determining that the calculated aggregate degree of compliance by the first user interface exceeds a threshold value; and sending data approving runtime use of the first user interface within the software environment. 